Putin’s ‘Delusions’ and Double Standards

An effective propaganda system will either mostly disappear inconvenient facts, or allow this information to surface if it comes out of the mouth of an enemy leader who is said to be out of touch with reality.

Russian President Vladimir Putin deliriously suggested that some US military actions may have been illegal.

That seems to be thinking when it comes to Russian President Vladimir Putin. “Has Vladimir Putin lost touch with reality?” wondered a Washington Post editorial (3/4/14) after a press conference. The Post kidded that while they “don’t have access to his psychologist,” one thing was clear: Putin made a “wild assortment of claims” about Russia’s military presence in Crimea, and that “the political system he has created has insulated him from the truth.”

There’s nothing to suggest that Putin was actually telling the truth; he’s a politician, after all.

But all of this conjecture about his mental state does a good job of obscuring the fact that some of what he said made perfect sense. In the New York Times story (3/4/14) about the press conference, for instance, readers are told that Putin “delivered a version of the crisis that was fundamentally at odds with the view held by most officials in the United States, Europe and Ukraine.”

This passage is definitely at odds with how US leaders talk about the crisis:

Above all, Mr. Putin appeared defiant, evidently frustrated by what he described as false promises by foreign diplomats and double standards that justify American or NATO military operations in the name of protecting human rights or democracy but disregard Russian concerns.

“We are often accused of illegitimacy in our actions, and when I ask the question, ‘Do you think everything you do is legitimate?’ they say yes,” he said, and then went on.

“It’s necessary to recall the actions of the United States in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, where they acted either without any sanction from the UN Security Council or distorted the content of these resolutions, as it happened in Libya,” he said. “There, as you know, only the right to create a no-fly zone for government aircraft was authorized, and it all ended in the bombing and participation of special forces in ground operations. Our partners, especially the United States, always formulate their geopolitical and state interests, and then drag the rest of the world with them, guided by the well-known phrase ‘If you’re not with us, you’re against us.'”

How completely out of touch!

John Kerry: Out of touch with reality?

Consider these remarks alongside some of what Secretary of State John Kerry has been saying recently. On Meet the Press (3/2/14), he explained, “You just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests.”

And then yesterday (3/4/14) in Kiev, he said, “It is not appropriate to invade a country and at the end of a barrel of a gun dictate what you are trying to achieve.”

To call these comments at odds with reality would be far too kind. As Robert Parry noted (ConsortiumNews, 3/4/14):

Since World War II–and extending well into the 21st century–the United States has invaded or otherwise intervened in so many countries that it would be challenging to compile a complete list. Just last decade, there were full-scale US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, plus American bombing operations from Pakistan to Yemen to Libya.

Indeed, one of the more revealing parallels might be Ronald Reagan’s 1983 invasion of Grenada. While the circumstances in Ukraine are certainly unique, there is some overlap; an internal power struggle led to a coup that killed Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and several other leaders. Reagan launched an invasion a week later, which he said was intended to protect the lives of several hundred medical students. As University of San Francisco Stephen Zunes (AP, 10/27/13) pointed out, the rationale was bogus:

“The coup gave us the excuse, and because the people of the island where so shell-shocked and outraged at what had been done, they welcomed in large part the US invasion that they would have probably fought off had it taken place while Bishop was still in power,” he said.

Zunes noted the Reagan administration had been trying to undermine Bishop’s regime, and said the invasion molded Grenada’s political and economic future, turning it from socialism to more capitalist lines.

In Ukraine, a coup following a violent round of demonstrations has led Russia to move forces into Crimea, in part–they claim–to protect ethnic Russians. US political leaders and media elite scoff at this reasoning. But is it any less bogus than Reagan’s?

There are plenty of other examples, of course; George H.W. Bush’s invasion of Panama was based in part on his suggestion that he needed to protect Americans there. The NATO military actions in Kosovo were intended in large part to support a secessionist uprising.

These–and plenty other–incidents are conveniently forgotten by much of the media, with a few exceptions, like the Washington Post‘s Eugene Robinson (3/3/14):

Before Iraq there was Afghanistan, there was the Persian Gulf War, there was Panama, there was Grenada. And even as we condemn Moscow for its outrageous aggression, we reserve the right to fire deadly missiles into Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and who knows where else.

But this history must be obscured in order to give US elites the chance to mock Putin. The Washington Post editorial worries that Putin “may actually believe his own propaganda.” Perhaps. But there’s little doubt that we believe our own.

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

Has anyone in the mainstream media noticed that Ukraine is slightly closer to Russia than to the United States? Or that on most maps, the North Atlantic ocean (which has a Treaty Organization that is a military alliance) does not lap the shores of Ukraine?

The Grenada analogy is apt. Reaganites deemed the island nation of 110,000 a strategic threat to the U.S., partly because Cuba was helping Grenada expand its airport to increase tourism. (The real reason, as Bishop said, was the bad example set by a country in the Americas — with a black, English-speaking leader, no less — to seize control of its own destiny.)

Also analogous is the Reaganites’ response to self-determination/liberation movements in Central America. They said the army of Nicaragua — one of Latin America’s poorest countries, with 1% of the population of the U.S. — was set to roll through three nations and invade Texas. So Reagan unleashed a vicious mercenary army against Nicaragua, and helped U.S.-installed military dictatorships in El Salvador and Guatemala set up death squads against resistance.

But Russia’s concern that NATO is aggressively expanding eastward and that the home of its Black Sea fleet is imperilled is considered illegitimate.

Kerry’s high dudgeon is truly ridiculous. But even if he weren’t such a blatant hypocrite and betrayer of what he used to profess to believe in, Americans would understand the world better if mainstream media looked beyond government posturing and belligerent Republicans.

[…] that overthrew the government of President Viktor Yanukovych, since Yanukovych had the support of official enemy Russia. To maintain a simple good vs. evil framework, the fact that Ukraine's neo-fascist movement […]

[…] that overthrew the government of President Viktor Yanukovych, since Yanukovych had the support of official enemy Russia. To maintain a simple good vs. evil framework, the fact that Ukraine’s neo-fascist movement […]

… what Secretary of State John Kerry has been saying recently:
“You just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests.”
And
“It is not appropriate to invade a country and at the end of a barrel of a gun dictate what you are trying to achieve.”

Here is a guy who clearly ignores history and relies on the enforced ignorance and passivity of the American Public to say the things he does with a straight face. He is also, lest we forget, the Presidential Candidate who, faced with massive vote fraud in 2004 “giving” the election to Bush, essentially said “oh, well”, did nothing about it, and went along with the second four years of a totally illegitimate Presidency. If you don’t have enough scrabble letters to spell HYPOCRITE in capitals then look for the tiles to spell QUISLING. Shame on any nation that keeps such people in office.

‘You just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests.”
Wow….is that really Mr. Kerry? Are we sure that an NBC SNL tape didn’t get mixed up?
Is the ONION now writing for him? Monty Python Redux?
Yes, Mr. kerry, there is an America..” and it’s .making the world safe for MOCKERY, one country at a time. :)

Rather than take seriously the Times’ observations on Putin’s demeanor – his facial expressions and the movements of his legs – I went to the transcript of his press conference. There, shorn of characterizations by the Times’ creative writers, I found a forthright, detailed, sober exposition of fact and opinion, each labeled as such. American politicians could learn a lot from the Russian president.

Hi Alan, I read that article too. I was very impressed. First the questions were taken and were also written clearly and completely too.Then very specific answers from Putin came back, including a bit of snark on some incredibily uninformed journalists’ comments. I would like to see that style in a major American newspaper, or in any US newspaper, that would be good too.

I also laugh because so many US headlines re:Putin write: “Defiant.” That seems to be a favorite response from people who don’t like questions. It seems that in the American political language…………DEFIANT translates into”How dare you ask that question, now let me run and hide.” A paternalistic response is so inadequate for a democratic republic .I am using that term,”democratic republic, ” a lot, because it seems that so many don’t remember who we are supposed to be. : ).

I agree that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia is analogous to the American invasion of Grenada. In that sense, yes, there is hypocrisy.

But, if we are going to be morally serious, and if we are going to say that invading Grenada was wrong, then we must say that Russian’s invasion was wrong, too. If that’s the case, then we (leftists and media critics) have a duty to say so. We can mention hypocrisy, but we can’t neglect the present.

What do I mean by relativism? Hart’s implication is that the invasion of Ukraine is morally equivalent to the American invasion of Afghanistan. I wholeheartedly disagree. One has to overlook many differences to force that conclusion. The invasion of Afghanistan was a legitimate use of force for the purposes of self-defense, and it also has had humanitarian implications – democracy and the transformation of women from chattel to citizens. The invasion of Afghanistan is not morally equivalent to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and so I think it is wrong to call the U.S. hypocritical in reference to that war, and also the intervention in Libya.

I know these observations put me in the minority among the posters here, but that’s a good thing. I think the American Left has some moral Spring cleaning to do – that’s all.

[…] that overthrew the government of President Viktor Yanukovych, since Yanukovych had the support of official enemy Russia. To maintain a simple good vs. evil framework, the fact that Ukraine’s neo-fascist movement […]

@Drew- Your conclusions might be accurate if you accept the MSM’s explanation as to Putin’s forces entering Crimea. Please note that there are many of us who do not believe the MSM’s propaganda. We view Putin’s actions in terms of his need to protect Russia’s sphere of influence against Western neoliberal forces intent on installing a regime that would (further) implement austerity policies in Ukraine, as they have done throughout the world. In that context, we support Putin.

This is precisely what I was afraid of. First off, I do not accept the MSM’s account either. I am quite capable of doing my own research and coming to my own conclusion…which I why I am upset that you (I don’t understand what you mean by “we”) “support Putin.” This is precisely the kind of thinking that an informed, independent person cannot adopt. You’re trading one propaganda for another.

Why not stick to your true loyalties? Why not say that you support those who want to replace Yanukovych and create a genuine democracy? There is a fantastic piece about whom the internationalist Left ought to support in n+1 magazine.

I welcome all other posters and Mr. Hart to comment on this topic. The Left seems to be adopting the values of Ramsey Clark, who, in order to “stick it to the U.S.” has defended people like Milosevic and Saddam Hussein in court with glee. I hope my point isn’t lost on you.

This article is not so far from the truth sadly.Im not equating Russian actions with the uS.But the perception is warranted.I do believe the difference would be that we do not want to permanently occupy, and I think he does.That aside we can not cry wolf when we all to often are the ones in the wolf suit.

I’m glad to hear that you are not making that equation, but can’t you see that Mr. Hart is, not to mention some the posters above?

And I would caution your timidity when you write “the perception is warranted.” You don’t have to give respect to opinions you do not share. That is what mainstream journalists do. Have the courage of your convictions to say that there is a very major difference between the invasion of Ukraine and the invasion of Afghanistan.

And lastly, this hypocrisy charge can only mean so much. If the U.S. invasion of Grenada was unjust (and it was), then people ought to call out Ukraine’s current invasion as unjust, too. Because the U.S. made a mistake like that under Reagan 30 years ago does not mean, forever in the future, we cannot condemn the actions of others. That’s unserious.

I recently heard Reagan’s invasion of grenada compared to a little practice of Nazi blitzkrieg. it was mae brussell on a recording which you can hear at the website with her name. she passed away, but her recordings are preserved. she studied the jfk assassination and American history following that until 1988 and did hundreds of great recorded radio shows.
somehow it was interesting that the invasion of grenada made a little more sense this way, though still outrageous. she had concluded that
Reagan (and many others) were Nazi-friendly and connected.

people should definitely watch RT’s truthteller show from last week about the NGO documents and the u.s. plans in Ukraine. following that AMAZING and informative report, RT has film and interviews from crimea with folks who tried to get to maidan square, how they were attacked going there, systematically assaulted and kept away, and also how they were forced to gather on their own streets later to keep the fascist Ukrainians from coming into their cities. it’s amazing stuff, on location and very unlike what MSM has shown.
please watch and share, especially about the “NGO”s in Ukraine.

Drew I think Im feeling that the Us has lost a lot of ground in the worlds eyes.Why- is a complex thing.We move with pretty heavy steps these days.We really don’t ask permission as it were for our moves.And a lot of the time I see the wisdom in that.Taking out Osama is a case in point.But we must understand that the perception is there that might makes right- as far as we are concerned.It involves our national interest.And often it is far from our shores.So when Russia calls the game as important to their national interests(and it is connected to them)…it may be hard for us to call fowl as loudly as some others.We have moved probably a hundred times under Obama without asking Russian permission.As many under Bush.I just don’t think we are suited to lead this parade.Putin correctly points out the hypocrisy’s.That said Putin is a cold war throw back.Obama was an idiot not to listen to Mitt,and Palin, on that count.He moves in one direction always.Attack….Until he hits a brick wall.Obama is a jello wall.He has coveted this gem and there is no legal justification for this invasion.Reagan moved rightly or wrongly then left.Putin means to stay.This is no time to unilaterally disarm.Yet that is where Obama is taking us.Truth is Drew we can do little to effect this outcome.But we can learn.And realize the Russian Bear is far from de clawed

From what little I am able to glean from your post, I still get the impression that you base your judgments off the perceptions of others. That is a terrible way to think. Robert Frost once said that a liberal is a man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel. I think that about captures much of “liberal wisdom” these days, not to mention the MSM.

My initial post was in response to someone who, in order to thumb her nose at the MSM, said “I support Putin.” Again, this is intellectual laziness passing itself off as independent thought. I expected better from FAIR readers.

And about hypocrisy one last time. Let’s make it simple. I can easily imagine some liberal masochist saying, “well, how dare we criticize Putin for criminalizing homosexual propaganda?! don’t you we know we still disallow same-sex marriage in many states?! who are we to judge?!” I hope everyone here would recognize that as hokum. Well, that is how I see the Ukraine invasion. Just because the US illegitimately invaded Grenada (30 years ago) does not give license to Russia to invade Ukraine under false pretenses.

Please, anyone let me know if I am still not making sense. Once it does make sense, then maybe you’ll criticize Mr. Hart about this. Do not get me wrong, I think Mr. Hart is a great critic of the media and quick to identify bipartisan stupidity. But we need to speak out as posters when we disagree: otherwise we become another Media Matters or Media Research Council.

@Drew- First, an “informed, independent person” does not “adopt” propaganda. Again, numerous examples exist of destabilization efforts by Western forces throughout history and the world. This is yet one more attempt, which Putin (like other strong leaders like Chavez) recognizes and is trying to thwart.

Second, my “true loyalties?” What are those exactly? I would hope you’re not being presumptuous and baselessly lumping me in with some fictional group you have concocted in your mind for the sole purpose of dismissing.

Third, please define “genuine democracy.” Because it certainly does not resemble anything like we have here in the US.

You have clearly bought into Putin’s propaganda. Just because Putin claims that NATO is out to get him does not mean we have to accept that interpretation. It is like the limp leftists who say, well, we must accept al Qaeda’s demands and withdraw from, say, Afghanistan because they feel threatened by a Judeo-Christian crusader alliance. We have the right and duty to say, no, not only is your worldview rooted in lies, but also, your principles and way of life are dangerous and should not be spread. The same is true of the Russians. America is a democracy that sometimes fails to reach its own potential. But when Russia reaches its desired potential, it is intentionally corrupt and brutal and homophobic and xenophobic and aggressive. There is a very strong moral reason to stand up to Russia and its global influence – from Venezuela to, my god, Syria. Your thinking seems to be (1) America is principally and practically a neoliberal empire and (2) that anyone who opposes the United States must be applauded and respected for their defense of human rights against the powerful – to paraphrase Mr. Snowden. Do I have that right?

A very large proportion of Ukrainians want to join Europe and to sever Russia’s economic and political grip on the country. They want a democracy and economy far better than the one they had under Yanukovych. Yes, a genuine democracy – or, if you like – a better, more representative democracy, if you are so concerned above semantics. I agree that the U.S.’s democracy is imperiled by corporotocracy, consumerism, cynicism, and money. But that does not mean the U.S. cannot be critical of other countries.

Please see my point about about hypocrisy and homosexuality. Any comments?

Would you mind telling me, then, what your loyalties are? All you have said thus far is that you “support Putin” because of your automatic distrust of the MSM. Is it not perhaps the case that the MSM is right, perhaps by accident, and that Putin really is a nefarious guy, even when someone like David Gregory says so?

@Drew- “Robert Frost once said that a liberal is a man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel.” So, being open-minded and intellectually honest enough to give serious consideration to the other side is somehow bad? If anything, your use of the quote says more about your closed-mindedness.

Putin says NATO’s out to get him? I had not heard that.

“America is a democracy that sometimes fails to reach its own potential.” Oh, Drew. So naive. You clearly still have much to learn about how the world really works.

And this one’s a doozy: “We have the right and duty to say, no, not only is your worldview rooted in lies, but also, your principles and way of life are dangerous and should not be spread.” Now, if you change the “we” in that sentence to every democratically-elected government the US has had a hand in ousting in order to prop up a pro-Western, neofascist oligarchy, then you would be correct.

Here’s another good one: “But when Russia reaches its desired potential, it is intentionally corrupt and brutal and homophobic and xenophobic and aggressive.” Again, just substitute “Russia” for “Western forces.”

Regarding #1 and #2 – yes, you have that right. Now you’re catching on.

“A very large proportion of Ukrainians want to join Europe and to sever Russia’s economic and political grip on the country.” In the western half, yes. But how about the eastern and southern portions? Show us the numbers. How many Ukrainians want to join Europe versus how many want to maintain ties to Russia?

Ah, so you think a “genuine” democracy is a “representative” democracy. Tell me, how well is that working out for the US right now? Do you feel well represented by our “representatives” in Congress? Whose best interests do you think they’re looking out for – the people (e.g. workers, consumers, minority groups, etc) or the banks and corporations?

My only comment about your “hypocrisy” nonsense, is that it’s irrelevant and distracts from main topic of discussion.

My loyalties lie with people fighting for social, economic and environmental justice. That does NOT include fake, CIA-backed, Koch-backed “protesters” orchestrated by shadow political structures intent on spreading their neoliberal version of “democracy” that pushes austerity for the sole purpose of redistributing wealth upward until we are once again a feudalistic society.

First, I can see that you have missed two of my major points. First, the issue of hypocrisy is central to the article and to your moral outrage. Instead of writing about Grenada, I simplified it for you: swap “invasion” with “violation of gay rights” and you have the same thing. You would say that we cannot criticize Putin for his homophobia because some states do not allow gay marriage. That is outrageous.

As for perceptions. Certainly you’ve poorly understood Putin’s worldview if you do not see that it has anything to do with NATO’s expansion. I can assure you I know more about how the world works than you do. I also know how to think better. I can still learn about the worldviews of al-Qaeda and Putin and Maduro and the ayatollahs and say that Western values are superior. Perfect, no. Superior, yes. I know it is not fashionable to be a leftist and say this kind of thing, but it sure beats easy cynicism and bogus claims of moral equivalence. For one, I am able to separate, in moral terms, the difference between principles and actions. This is what makes Western values superior to Russian oligarchic and religious jingoism, no matter how bad the Dulles or Bundy brothers screwed things up.

If you honestly think that America is a neoliberal empire and that its opponents are fighting the good fight, then really we have nothing further to discuss. This isn’t to say that America hasn’t made mistakes. It has. But if you think this motivates every domestic or foreign policy decision, then I consider you a lost cause, and I weep for the future of the Left. On the Left’s intellectual gravestone, we’ll the words “We supported Putin” – TeeJae

@Drew- The issue of hypocrisy may be central to the article but not to my initial comment, and certainly not to my “moral outrage.” It’s nothing more than a media distraction, and I couldn’t care less. I “would say we cannot criticize Putin?” No, I would not say that. LGBT rights and the invasion of Grenada (or any other country) are two totally separate issues. Enough with this straw man argument already.

“I can still learn about the worldviews of [other world leaders] and say that Western values are superior.” Of course you can, because like so many other self-proclaimed “patriotic” Americans, you have a nationalistic and ethnocentric bias resulting from Western media propaganda. And I’d have to question your definition of “superior.”

America’s “opponents.” Fighting the “good fight.” A lot of empty rhetoric. Put on your critical thinking cap and ask yourself, who exactly are America’s “opponents”? And why, specifically? And what exactly is the “good fight?”

Last time: you constantly bring up Western aggression as if it were morally relevant to the invasion of Ukraine, which it is not. That is my point. So all of this whining about double-standards is irrelevant: I think we agree.

It is difficult arguing with a relativist, exhausting too. I want to know, do you not think some countries or civilizations are built on inferior principles? Do you really think that Iran’s political philosophy is comparable to the West’s? Or that Russia’s blatantly xenophobic worldview (that’s nationalism for you!) is comparable to the West’s?

And Russia is certainly an opponent. I would not call it an enemy per se. But if you look at the case of Syria, the U.S. is on the right side of the conflict, and Russia is possibly Assad’s greatest enabler. Because the U.S. and Russia are on opposite sides, then we are by definition opponents. I don’t see that as a controversial or self-incriminating statement at all. Do you?

I think you ought to give up on the propaganda charge. I read FAIR’s blog on a regular basis because I recognize MSM and cable news channels as gutless infotainment. This does not preclude the possibility that I will sometimes agree with U.S. policy and sometimes not. I’ve posted a link to my blog above, where I have written posts critical of income inequality, of Wall Street, of the education industry, many of the MSM, and of agribusinesses. In other words, I have an independent mind. Someone who is reflexively anti-American doesn’t have that luxury, which explains your atrocious “We support Putin” comment that I’m waiting for you to retract.

@Drew- Then you’ll be waiting a very long time. Putin’s “invasion” (are we really still calling it that?) of Crimea was justified. He was responding to a request by Yanukovych to protect the Russian people there. And yes, also to protect Russian interests in the region. WE do it all the time, so it’s the ultimate hypocrisy to condemn Putin for it. There. I addressed your hypocrisy issue.

“Do you really think that Iran’s political philosophy is comparable to the West’s?” Absolutely not. But that doesn’t make it “bad,” just different. Iran’s not buying into the Western elites’ neoliberal agenda, which infuriates the West, so they put Iran on their “hit” list; just like Libya, Syria, Cuba, Chile, Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, etc. And yes, even Russia.

“if you look at the case of Syria, the U.S. is on the right side of the conflict.” Really? Why?

“Because the U.S. and Russia are on opposite sides, then we are by definition opponents.” Opposite sides of what, exactly?

“Someone who is reflexively anti-American doesn’t have that luxury.” So, questioning one’s own country’s foreign policy motives (based on its imperialistic history) is somehow “anti-American?” If anything, it’s more American than you’ll ever be. After all, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” -Howard Zinn

First off, you completed disregarded my point about hypocrisy, which leads me to believe that you simply do not understand my point. But it’s all posted above so you can take your time with it. In short: you have to justify the actions (like an invasion) on its own basis. Because the US once unjustly invaded Grenada does not mean that Putin’s invasion is somehow justified.

Also, of course I agree that dissent is important. Have you seen my blog? I am very critical of many things that the U.S. does domestically and internationally. As related to my first point: I can think that the U.S.’s meddling in Latin America and other places is wrong, yet also regard some actions like the invasion of Afghanistan as legitimate. That’s what it means to be independent. Your reflexive anti-Americanism is the problem and a real obstacle to independent though. You probably think that the invasion of Afghanistan is some neoliberal project too and that the U.S. had no genuine security or humanitarian motives. Am I right?

Again, it is exhausting arguing with a relativist. Iran’s system is just “different”? So its principled limits on religious freedom, democracy, and human rights is not inferior to secular liberalism? Astounding, and quite hard to believe considering your otherwise strong views.

And you don’t need to bother with the recommended reading. You probably think I’ve never heard of, let alone read Zinn or Said or Chomsky or Hedges or Chalmers Johnson. I have. And I have also read Nick Cohen and Paul Berman and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq and Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Murray and others who have criticized the Left’s descent to masochism and relativism. But I appreciate your intention.

@Drew- Where did I say Putin’s “invasion” was justified because we invaded Grenada? Go ahead, try to find the quote. I’ll wait.

Since you somehow missed it (maybe because it was all the way at the top of my most recent post), I have copied/pasted it for you to read again: “Putin’s ‘invasion’ (are we really still calling it that?) of Crimea was justified. He was responding to a request by Yanukovych to protect the Russian people there. And yes, also to protect Russian interests in the region.”

THAT is why it is justified; NOT because the US did it, too. I hope you understand now. I don’t think I can make it any clearer.

“You probably think that the invasion of Afghanistan is some neoliberal project too and that the U.S. had no genuine security or humanitarian motives.” When the West decides to take out yet another democratically-elected government on its “hit list,” it does so under the guise of “humanitarianism,” for the purpose of getting the public to buy into being taken into yet another unnecessary war. It’s also how they attempt to “win hearts and minds” of those countries they are destabilizing. It’s the ultimate distraction. Build some roads and schools with one hand, while secretly propping up a fascist government that will do the West’s bidding with the other hand. Clearly, you didn’t bother to read the link I gave you.

“So [Iran’s] principled limits on religious freedom, democracy, and human rights is not inferior to secular liberalism?” It’s neither inferior nor superior. Again, that’s your ethnocentricity (and yes, xenophobia) talking. First, Iran is not a democracy, it’s a theocratic republic. So, it’s impossible to compare the two. Second, it’s a completely different culture. Take off your ethnocentric-colored glasses and look at it objectively: It’s no better or worse (those are subjective opinions). It’s just different. Learn to respect cultural differences. The entire world cannot be (nor does it desire to be) America.

“You don’t need to bother with the recommended reading…” Oh, how very disingenuous of you.

Oh, I see. And the Taliban’s rule was just “different,” too? That democratically elected Taliban that the U.S. had no right to overthrow, correct? I mean, if I criticize the Taliban I must be some xenophobic, ethno-phallogocentric neoliberal crusader imperialist!

It’s amazing that someone who is so opinionated and “progressive” would at the same believe in moral stasis and relativism. Have it your way, TeeJae.

Obviously if it was Putin it was wring, however seems a little hypocritical to insert these two phrases in the article considering the extra-judicial killings carried out in our name by the US and our interference in Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.